Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway Variance Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Why Nashua zoning board denied 1 Lewis Street driveway expansion
Summary
The Zoning Board denied variances to expand and relocate a driveway at 1 Lewis Street after board members and a neighbor cited excessive paving, likely parking intensity and potential visibility hazards at the Lewis/Russell intersection. The applicant declined to respond to the neighbor’s written opposition.
The Nashua Zoning Board of Adjustment on Aug. 27 unanimously denied two variances sought for 1 Lewis Street, citing neighborhood‑character and safety concerns.
The owner (identified in the record as Heidi Y Jelly) sought: (1) permission to exceed the maximum driveway width — existing 29.5 feet with a proposed total width of 59.5 feet across the front of the house — and (2) permission to locate a driveway 31 feet from the Lewis/Russell intersection where the code requires a minimum of 50 feet. Eileen Castillo, speaking for the owner, told the board the work was to improve accessibility for extended family, including elderly relatives moving in.
Neighbors voiced concerns. The board read a written letter from neighbor Alex Como, who wrote that occupants already park “anywhere between 6 and 8 vehicles” and sometimes commercial vehicles, and that allowing a large paved frontage would worsen the problem. The letter and accompanying photos were entered into the record; the applicant declined to offer testimony in response when given the opportunity.
Board members questioned practical parking capacity and safety. Member Neely said his site visit raised doubts that the property could accommodate multiple cars without atypical maneuvering: "I did a drive by and...it didn't look like there's enough room from the house out to the street to pull straight in." Other members said paving the entire front yard would make the property resemble a commercial storefront and that perpendicular parking could encroach on public right of way. One member also flagged that backing out within 31 feet of the intersection could pose a hazard for vehicles turning from the cross street.
The motion to deny, moved and seconded by board members and supported in discussion for reasons including lack of reasonable alternative, neighborhood character and potential safety hazard, passed unanimously. The chair reminded the applicant of rehearing and municipal appeal options and noted that a rehearing would return the matter to this board in about 30 days if requested.
What was in the record: applicant testimony (via translator), staff questions about the number of vehicles and garage usability, photos and a written opposition from a neighbor alleging regular on‑site parking beyond typical household levels, and board members’ site-visit observations about lot depth and visibility.
Next steps: the applicant may request rehearing or pursue municipal appeal channels; the planning staff was directed to provide standard denial and rehearing information.
